I was thinking that the area where the bullet is pushed onto the casing could be made air-tight, and the percentage of oxygen in that area increased. This would cause a higher percentage of oxygen to be inside of the closed bullet. This should make the bullet more powerful with the same amount of powder. For pistols it could guarantee that all of the powder is burned before the bullet left the barrel, increasing the power of the bullet.
The percentage of oxygen in that area could be increased in increments and the bullets tested to see if they are stable and would not go off when you don't want them to. The temperature at which they would go off could be tested also. Also the muzzle velocity of the bullet and its power would be tested. These tests would be done at each stage of increase in the percentage of oxygen that is used when the bullet is pushed onto the casing.
It seems to me that if pure oxygen is in the bullet, something like card board ( and many other things) would burn fast like gun powder and would be suitable to propel the bullet.

Powder does not need oxygen to burn. The simplest way to increase muzzle velocity is to make a bigger shell and put more powder in it. Pressurising the bullets contents would cost more and invite the risk of failure while in storage.

Pure oxygen is highly reactive, most substances will simply ignite on contact. If you did pressurise the bullet to get a little extra punch you would be best of using Helium, which is light and non reactive. To get any significant increase is velocity I would say the bullet would have to be pressurised to at least 200psi.

Bullets are designed for specific situations. Among these jobs is the ability to be stored and handled safely.

I'm not sure if pure oxygen will react with modern powders. You would have to test that as well.

The limiting factor in firearms is the mechanical strength of the gun itself. Using modern powders, it is quite easy to overload allmost all cartridges to the point of damaging the firearm. All you have to do is use a little more powder. I know of no cartridge in which all the space is filled. Not even close, half full would be a good guess. And you can almost allways choose a more "powerfull" power formulation, there are hundreds on the market.

Pressurizing the bullet will not be effective for this reason.

In an ordinary rifle, the pressures generated by the burning powder to push the bullet out of the barrel are around 10000-15000 psi. This is necessary in order to accellerate the bullet to supersonic speeds along the length of the barrel, which we assume to be less than 1m.

Even if you somehow manage to pressurize the bullet in the casing to 1000psi safely, it's just not worth the effort. It would be cheaper to simply add a little more powder rather than to come up with a whole new airtight pressurized case design.

Anyway, the damage done by a bullet is not dependant on it's velocity, but rather on the amount of kinetic energy it possesses during impact. The formula to measure KE is E=(1/2)MV^2, M being the mass of the moving object, and V being the velocity. Increasing the mass of the bullet would also be a lot cheaper method to increase penentrating power.

This is one scary-assed thread.You got some DIY manuel on making guns an ammo? Whered you getit from? you guys are members of some secret society? Maybe a terrorist cell? :eek: The CIA? Can i join? :D

Yep, pretty much got it covered with the responses. Bullet design is an important factor too. You can add more powder to a casing, and have a longer barrel for more acceleration time, but after all this, it's the job of the bullet to deliver the energy.

This is the tricky part, the bullet needs to slip through the air, and lose as little KE as possible in flight, but then deliver as much into the target as possible. Over penetration wastes energy. Now, rotation rate is key here. The bullet needs to be rotating as slowly (this is still thousands of RPM though!) to stay stable in flight, so when it hits, it becomes unstable, and refracts, taking a longer path, and tumbling, delivering all of it's energy, hopefully. So the bullet and barrel have to be designed together, to get this ratio right. You can't just make a faster/heavier bullet, that's only part of the equation.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/firearms/1277336.html

http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/monster_1103/
thats power,

the construction of the gun itself is the key for any kind of power, including new types of ammunition for added power,



peace

http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/firearms/1277336.html

http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/monster_1103/
thats power,


That's nothing. If you are going to use a 50cal round, might as well go for 50cal BMG, and get 12,500 ft.lbs of power.

If it's just raw power you're after.

I'd rather have just 1500ft.lbs of power, 30 shots, and a scoped lightweight rifle. Any modern .223 would fit the bill.

This is one scary-assed thread.You got some DIY manuel on making guns an ammo? Whered you getit from? you guys are members of some secret society? Maybe a terrorist cell? :eek: The CIA? Can i join? :D

Nah, just do a web search for "reloading". Here in the States it's quite legal and respectable for sporting purposes. Target shooters especially like to load their own ammo for consistency, and if you fire a lot of rounds you can save some money. And there actually are manuals, usually published by powder manufacturers, that give recommended load for a given casing and bullet.

Nah, just do a web search for "reloading". Here in the States it's quite legal and respectable for sporting purposes. Target shooters especially like to load their own ammo for consistency, and if you fire a lot of rounds you can save some money. ...

I don't think one can save much money reloading their own shells. I.e., my 38 Special ammo costs a little less than 20 cents each. It would take more time to collect the spent shells than that's worth ...assuming you count your time as worth anything.

Shotgun shells can sometimes be reloaded "profitably", but ya' gotta' shoot a lot to make it worthwhile ...like being on a skeet team or similar shooting club. Automation has taken the profit out of it altogether.

Baron Max

Fuck Bullets

:(

Yeah, most handgun cartridges aren't profitable to reload. Mostly rifle and oddball cartridges that are hard to come by. And even then you have to be a serious shooter. I don't reload myself. I know a little about it because my brother is into it. Interesting hobby. Many factors go into developing a precision load, almost more art than science.

Powder does not need oxygen to burn. The simplest way to increase muzzle velocity is to make a bigger shell and put more powder in it. Pressurising the bullets contents would cost more and invite the risk of failure while in storage.

Pure oxygen is highly reactive, most substances will simply ignite on contact. If you did pressurise the bullet to get a little extra punch you would be best of using Helium, which is light and non reactive. To get any significant increase is velocity I would say the bullet would have to be pressurised to at least 200psi.

Bullets are designed for specific situations. Among these jobs is the ability to be stored and handled safely.

I'm not sure if pure oxygen will react with modern powders. You would have to test that as well.

The powder has an oxidizer that releases oxygen as it burns to promote more burning. [Potassium nitrate is an oxydizer for gunpowder.]
If you already have an increased amount of oxygen in the bullet, that would make the powder burn faster and cause more powder to burn before the bullet leaves the barrel producing more pressure.
I am not talking about pressurizing the bullet. Bullets are sealed at the factory in ordinary air. I am saying have the bullet pushed onto the casing in an increased oxygen atmosphere, so that the air in the bullet has more oxygen than normal air. Bullets are not filled to the top with powder. That air space could contain more oxygen.

Pressurizing the bullet will not be effective for this reason.

In an ordinary rifle, the pressures generated by the burning powder to push the bullet out of the barrel are around 10000-15000 psi. This is necessary in order to accellerate the bullet to supersonic speeds along the length of the barrel, which we assume to be less than 1m.

Even if you somehow manage to pressurize the bullet in the casing to 1000psi safely, it's just not worth the effort. It would be cheaper to simply add a little more powder rather than to come up with a whole new airtight pressurized case design.

Anyway, the damage done by a bullet is not dependant on it's velocity, but rather on the amount of kinetic energy it possesses during impact. The formula to measure KE is E=(1/2)MV^2, M being the mass of the moving object, and V being the velocity. Increasing the mass of the bullet would also be a lot cheaper method to increase penentrating power.

I was not talking about pressurizing the bullet. I was talking about putting the bullet on the casing in a room that had a higher percentage of oxygen then ordinary air. This would put more oxygen in the empty space of the bullet and cause more powder to burn faster.

[A little side idea. - I think that the m-16 calibre (.223) is not strong enough to use in city fighting. It proved itself in vietnam, but that was in the jungle. In the jungle you have shorter distances to shoot and you shoot through bushes. In the city, the distances can be much longer and men can hide behind walls, not bushes. A 30 06 Browning Automatic Rifle or an M-1 might do better in city fighting, than the m-16. 30 06 with solid ball ammo shoots through brick walls, and the heavier round will keep more of its energy over long distances in the air. In the city you can resupply the heavier ammo easier. In vietnam the lighter ammo was good for carrying on long patrols in the jungle. The lighter ammo is not as needed in the city.]

Sorry to post off topic, but I just wanted to draw your attention to this comic juxtaposition by 'EmptyForceOfChi':
the construction of the gun itself is the key for any kind of power, including new types of ammunition for added power
peace
It made me chuckle.

I was not talking about pressurizing the bullet. I was talking about putting the bullet on the casing in a room that had a higher percentage of oxygen then ordinary air. This would put more oxygen in the empty space of the bullet and cause more powder to burn faster.

[A little side idea. - I think that the m-16 calibre (.223) is not strong enough to use in city fighting. It proved itself in vietnam, but that was in the jungle. In the jungle you have shorter distances to shoot and you shoot through bushes. In the city, the distances can be much longer and men can hide behind walls, not bushes. A 30 06 Browning Automatic Rifle or an M-1 might do better in city fighting, than the m-16. 30 06 with solid ball ammo shoots through brick walls, and the heavier round will keep more of its energy over long distances in the air. In the city you can resupply the heavier ammo easier. In vietnam the lighter ammo was good for carrying on long patrols in the jungle. The lighter ammo is not as needed in the city.]

The oxygen is provided in the chemicals in the powder. They are already optimized for the best burn rate for their application. If you can improve the explosive power of the powder, gaseous oxygen would be superfluous. That would just be another mix of the chemicals or as has been mentioned, use more powder. Pressurized pure oxygen would also make the bullets tend to detonate on their own, lowering the temperature at which the powder will combust.

dzerzhinsky,
Anyway, the damage done by a bullet is not dependant on it's velocity, but rather on the amount of kinetic energy it possesses during impact. The formula to measure KE is E=(1/2)MV^2, M being the mass of the moving object, and V being the velocity. Increasing the mass of the bullet would also be a lot cheaper method to increase penentrating power.

If damage done is dependent on KE, then damage is mostly dependent on velocity. A 3 kilo rock traveling at 2 kph delivers 12 joules of energy. A 2 lb rock traveling at 3 kph delivers 18 joules of energy.

Velocity is squared in KE=E=(1/2)MV^2, so when velocity increases marginally, KE increases exponentially.

Blindman,
Powder does not need oxygen to burn.
Powder does need oxygen to burn. Detonating powder is combustion, and by definition requires oxygen to burn.

Laika,
It made me chuckle.

It made me chuckle, too.

Modern smokeless powders are cellulose nitrate based. All oxygen necessary for combution is incorporated into the molecule. One of the main problems in designing a powder is to slow down the burn rate, cellulose nitrate is technically a high explosive and damage to the firearm is a real possibility. If you want a faster burn rate for a particular cartridge, you just get out your catalog from lyman, or ball, or hogden, and order a can of faster burning powder.

Unless your interest is purely theoretical, you can satisfy any desire for great firepower easily. Anyone who has ever fired a 44 Magnum pistol knows that very few people could hold a more powerful gun on target. But, there are even more powerful pistols available, such as the Cassul ( spelling uncertain ) 456. And, if you are a die-hard masochist, get a 458 Magnum elephant gun, saw off its barrel (s) and see for yourself how impractical it is.

My bottom line is this: perhaps the addition of pure oxygen might increase the powder combustion yield by a probably unnoticeable amount, but it is possible with current technology to have a gun that is too powerful to be really useful.

A harmful effect of filling the gas cavity in a cartridge with oxygen is that it would cause much more corrosion of the hull and the projectile. And, possibly the cap also. Reliability is extremely important in guns.

If the gas were manipulated, it would be better to cause it to be an inert gas such as the aforementioned helium or another noble gas such as krypton, or the relatively inert gas pure nitrogen.

Ghost, I could not help but chuckle at your posts all the way through this thread. :D

It's pretty clear that you've never read anything about gun design and gunpowder chemistry. Others here have tried to explain it but I'll put it in very simple terms.

The breech of the weapon (the part that holds the shell at the time it's being fired) has to be carefully designed to safely withstand (hold) the pressure cause by the ignition of the powder. The powder already contains an oxidizer and makes no use of any free oxygen inside the shell. It's perfectly balanced chemically because the powder maker has no control over how much will be placed in a particular shell and no way to know in advance how much air space you will provide. It's not even necessary to try and calculate it because the actual explosive/oxidizer causes it ALL to be burned. Adding oxygen gives you nothing - except possible trouble.

And yes, I'm a reloader. I have a variety of weapons and use my Lee Loader along with a precision scale so that I can accurately load my shells. Those you buy commercially are pretty good but there can be some variation between loads. The machines that load them are just machines after all, and are subject to malfunction now and then.

Putting pure oxygen in with your powder seems like an easy way to accidently have the powder oxidize prematurely. Kaboom.

I think rifles get a lot higher than 15,000 PSI. A 5.56 NATO is up around 60,000 PSI, I think.

There is such a device called a "light-gas gun" that uses a tank of pressurized light-mass gas (He or H) containing an explosive charge. There is a thin(ner) diaphragm obstructing a passage that feeds into the breech end of a barrel. When the explosive is triggered, the diaphragm ruptures and the large amount of light-mass gas can exert a much greater force on the projectile.

The point of all this was not to increase efficiency but velocity. The burn rates of high-velocity-burning fuels tends to get more unstable as the burn rates go up, making engineering anything to handle the force difficult. 15,000-20,000 FPS is possible with a light-gas gun, but was found to be not real practical. These were research projects, exploring space use--big stationary units--and the last time I read about this was back when Gerald Bull got killed.
~

If damage done is dependent on KE, then damage is mostly dependent on velocity. A 3 kilo rock traveling at 2 kph delivers 12 joules of energy. A 2 lb rock traveling at 3 kph delivers 18 joules of energy.


Er for your information that happens to be true...

Come to think about it, the only main factor limiting the power of a bullet would be the strength of the gun barrel. Let's say that one day someone invents a material to make guns which is effectively unbreakable. You could simply use TNT as the 'propellant' instead of cordite or whatever people are using now, keeping in mind that the VoD of TNT is 7000+m/s.

Well if all the force from the detonation of the TNT is directed in one single direction instead of all directions, you could then end up with a stream of gas moving at say, 10000m/s? That would be able to bring your bullet up to rather impressive speeds.

Ghost, I could not help but chuckle at your posts all the way through this thread. :D

It's pretty clear that you've never read anything about gun design and gunpowder chemistry. Others here have tried to explain it but I'll put it in very simple terms.

The breech of the weapon (the part that holds the shell at the time it's being fired) has to be carefully designed to safely withstand (hold) the pressure cause by the ignition of the powder. The powder already contains an oxidizer and makes no use of any free oxygen inside the shell. It's perfectly balanced chemically because the powder maker has no control over how much will be placed in a particular shell and no way to know in advance how much air space you will provide. It's not even necessary to try and calculate it because the actual explosive/oxidizer causes it ALL to be burned. Adding oxygen gives you nothing - except possible trouble.

And yes, I'm a reloader. I have a variety of weapons and use my Lee Loader along with a precision scale so that I can accurately load my shells. Those you buy commercially are pretty good but there can be some variation between loads. The machines that load them are just machines after all, and are subject to malfunction now and then.

Let's use for example a .357 magnum with a 4'' barrel. The bullet leaves the barrel before all of the powder is burned. Adding more powder would be useless in that case. It would just be more unburned powder. Adding more oxygen to the air in the casing would burn more powder before the bullet leaves the barrel producing more pressure and higher velocity.
It would have a use. You could use a faster burning powder to produce the same effect, I agree with that.
I am starting to like that idea of having an inert gas in the bullet, if oxygen really does produce deterioration of the shell casing. A faster burning powder with an inert gas might produce the same powered bullet and last longer.
But bullets already last a long time, so it would not be much of an improvement.
I say experiment with a higher pecentage of oxygen in the bullet and see if there are any improvements in performance that are desirable.

I think rifles get a lot higher than 15,000 PSI. A 5.56 NATO is up around 60,000 PSI, I think.

There is such a device called a "light-gas gun" that uses a tank of pressurized light-mass gas (He or H) containing an explosive charge. There is a thin(ner) diaphragm obstructing a passage that feeds into the breech end of a barrel. When the explosive is triggered, the diaphragm ruptures and the large amount of light-mass gas can exert a much greater force on the projectile.

The point of all this was not to increase efficiency but velocity. The burn rates of high-velocity-burning fuels tends to get more unstable as the burn rates go up, making engineering anything to handle the force difficult. 15,000-20,000 FPS is possible with a light-gas gun, but was found to be not real practical. These were research projects, exploring space use--big stationary units--and the last time I read about this was back when Gerald Bull got killed.
~

Now, you see, here is a case where more oxygen in the casing could be an improvement in power. You said the burn rates of high-velocity-burning fuels tends to get more unstable as the burn rates go up, and this makes enineering anything to handle the great force difficult.
Putting more oxygen in the bullet to increase the burn rate, rather than using a faster burning powder, could produce an increased burn rate that is stable and allow you to design a mechanism that could handle the increased force.

Hehe, reminds me of this funny video:

http://www.firearmsid.com/A_featurevideo.htm

I recently received an email from Jin Kim who wrote...

"the "feature video" you have on your website... came from www.accuratereloading.com. Basically the rifle is chambered for the .577 Tyrannosaurus Rex. According to their reloading data, the 13.6 pound rifle normally fires a solid 750 grain bullet at a velocity approaching 2600 fps for a muzzle energy of over 11000 foot-pounds. This energy is comparable to that of the US military's .50 BMG cartridge frequently used as a heavy machinegun and anti-material rifle.

- N

Putting more oxygen in the bullet to increase the burn rate, rather than using a faster burning powder, could produce an increased burn rate that is stable and allow you to design a mechanism that could handle the increased force.
Ghost,

Apparently you know nothing about firearm propellants. Nowadays nobody at all uses fuel-oxidizer mixes for example gunpowder to shoot bullets. Smokeless powder is used as a propellant, for example nitrocellulose is used.

In such propellants, the fuel and oxidizer are bound to each other IN THE SAME MOLECULE, not mixed together like gunpowder or flash powder.

When smokeless powder is set off, the propellant molecule splits down into the oxidizer and the fuel, and they instantly burn up.

Adding extra oxygen would be completely useless at increasing burn rate of the powder, for any extra oxygen would be added as a seperate ingrediant, instead of being bound in the same molecule as the fuel.

Go do a google search on 'smokeless powder' before you try to argue about this.

Don't you men have a better application for such knowledge?

peace is right.

Ghost,

Apparently you know nothing about firearm propellants. Nowadays nobody at all uses fuel-oxidizer mixes for example gunpowder to shoot bullets. Smokeless powder is used as a propellant, for example nitrocellulose is used.

In such propellants, the fuel and oxidizer are bound to each other IN THE SAME MOLECULE, not mixed together like gunpowder or flash powder.

When smokeless powder is set off, the propellant molecule splits down into the oxidizer and the fuel, and they instantly burn up.

Adding extra oxygen would be completely useless at increasing burn rate of the powder, for any extra oxygen would be added as a seperate ingrediant, instead of being bound in the same molecule as the fuel.

Go do a google search on 'smokeless powder' before you try to argue about this.

This might be the best idea to come out of all of this.
The burn rate of the fast burning powders becomes more unstable as the burn rates go up so it is harder to engineer a gun to handle them.
So, maybe putting an inert gas like helium in the bullet, might make the burn rates of the faster burning powders more stable so gun mechanisms could be designed more easily to handle them.
Might be more important for artillery shells.

What's the point of putting in an inert gas? Whatever gas you put in it still would not affect the powder or the burn rate. It is not involved in the reaction.

Also, keeping Helium inside anything for a period of time is really, really hard. Helium is very, very small, and at pressure will defeat most seals. Certainly it will not stay inside a current pressed brass cartridge, you'd need to introduce some ptfe washer, and that won't burn clean, so will foul your action, .... etc etc, meaning, it's a sucky idea.

Remember, in gunpowders (both black powder and modern smokeless powders) it’s actually the nitrogen in the nitrate molecule that acts as the oxidizer. The nitrogen in a nitrate is in the 5+ oxidation state, making it a much better oxidizer than the oxygens that are attached to it!

Don't you men have a better application for such knowledge?

peace is right.

I couldn't possibly think of a better application than the defense and protection of peace.

-AntonK

Remember, in gunpowders (both black powder and modern smokeless powders) it’s actually the nitrogen in the nitrate molecule that acts as the oxidizer. The nitrogen in a nitrate is in the 5+ oxidation state, making it a much better oxidizer than the oxygens that are attached to it!

No. Most of the N winds up as N2.

Ghost,

Apparently you know nothing about firearm propellants. Nowadays nobody at all uses fuel-oxidizer mixes for example gunpowder to shoot bullets. Smokeless powder is used as a propellant, for example nitrocellulose is used.

In such propellants, the fuel and oxidizer are bound to each other IN THE SAME MOLECULE, not mixed together like gunpowder or flash powder.

When smokeless powder is set off, the propellant molecule splits down into the oxidizer and the fuel, and they instantly burn up.

Adding extra oxygen would be completely useless at increasing burn rate of the powder, for any extra oxygen would be added as a seperate ingrediant, instead of being bound in the same molecule as the fuel.

Go do a google search on 'smokeless powder' before you try to argue about this.

Extra oxygen will definitely increase the burn rate of nitrocellulose or any similar material. What you sort of forget is that the nitrate and the cellulose can be chemically affected separately even when combined as one molecule. Any kind of oxygen will support combustion of the cellulose part, and oxygen as a gas is more available than oxygen as a nitrate. The nitrate portion has to be broken down by heat or electricity to release oxygen for the cellulose to consume. Free oxygen will also lower the temperature at which the powder can start to burn, and once it's burning, it's off.

No. Most of the N winds up as N2.N5+ has to oxidize something to go to N2. How do you think it gets from a 5+ oxidation state to a zero oxidation state? In order for N5+ to be reduced, something must be oxidized.

Extra oxygen will definitely increase the burn rate of nitrocellulose or any similar material. What you sort of forget is that the nitrate and the cellulose can be chemically affected separately even when combined as one molecule. Any kind of oxygen will support combustion of the cellulose part, and oxygen as a gas is more available than oxygen as a nitrate. The nitrate portion has to be broken down by heat or electricity to release oxygen for the cellulose to consume. Free oxygen will also lower the temperature at which the powder can start to burn, and once it's burning, it's off.Again, it's wrong to think of nitrate as "releasing" oxygen to support combustion in gunpowder. In order to burn something you need an oxidizer. The higher the oxidation state that an atom is in, the better oxidizer it will make. The nitrogen in nitrate is in the +5 oxidation state, while the oxygens are all in the -2 oxidation state. It's the nitrogen atom that acts as an oxidizing agent.

No, the higher the oxidizing potential (the half cell voltage) the better the oxidizer. The oxidizing state (ie +5) only tells how much something can oxidize, not how well it can oxidize. Energetically, it is fairly easy to break the bonds between N and O in the NO3 radical. This leaves you N which is fairly inert, and O which is a very good oxidizer. The only reason N is in the +5 state is that O likes to be in the -2 state more.

No, the higher the oxidizing potential (the half cell voltage) the better the oxidizer. The oxidizing potential is directly related to the oxidation state. Look in any physical chemistry textbook. Or, look at any table of reduction potentials for free ions in various oxidation states. The reduction potential always increases as you move to higher oxidation states for a given atom.

My objection is that redox model only adequately describes ionic (or predominately ionic) chemical bonds. The NO bonds in the NO3 radical are essentially covalent. Oxidation state isn't a particularly usefull way of understanding the chemistry. Energy of formation is a lot clearer.

My objection is that redox model only adequately describes ionic (or predominately ionic) chemical bonds. The NO bonds in the NO3 radical are essentially covalent. Oxidation state isn't a particularly usefull way of understanding the chemistry. Energy of formation is a lot clearer.Just look at the oxidation states of oxygen and nitrogen in the products of a gunpowder reaction; the oxygen is still in the 2- oxidation state that it started in, while the nitrogen moves from a 5+ state to a zero state. With that in mind, I don't see how you could possible argue that the nitrogen isn't the oxidizing agent. It's the only thing in the reaction that gets reduced!

No, the "+5" state of N doesn't exist. N and O don't bond ionically. No electrons are transfered. They bond covalently, and are both in the +0 state. Once the covalent bonds broken, then the O are free reduce to the -2 state oxidizing C, H etc. The N mostly forms N2, another covalent bond.

No, the "+5" state of N doesn't exist. N and O don't bond ionically. No electrons are transfered. They bond covalently, and are both in the +0 state. This is just wrong. Things aren't automatically in the zero state just because it's a covalent molecule. Any chemistry textbook (that covers the subject) will tell you that the carbon in methane is in the 4- oxidation state, even though that's certainly a covalent molecule.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidation_state for a pretty good description of assigning oxidation numbers.

You misunderstand me. I know you can use the redox formalism. but it's just silly. Redox is accurately descriptive of ionic chemistry, for example electrolysis reactions, but because it's based on the notion of the transfer of electrons it isn't very helpfull in understanding covalent reactions. N is a rather unreactive element that primarily forms covalent bonds. It tends neither to lose or aquire electrons. So it is better to think of it as binding very reactive O in the reduced state than to think of it as a "powerfull" oxydizer.

I couldn't possibly think of a better application than the defense and protection of peace.

-AntonK

Thats a pretty narrow assessment